Expand field to 72?

[PhilSimms11]

The tournament wouldn't officially start until we're down to 64. There could be 8 play-ins (16 teams). That'd be 2 games per region. The 8 winners would advance to the brackets as the 15 & 16 seeds and join the other 56. Having 68 is just dumb. In 1983-84 they had 4 play-in games...and they actually called them play-in games. None of this 1st round crap with 4 games. Since the inception of the tournament in 1939 they've expanded 10 times.

8 (1939-50)
16 (1951-52)
22-25 (1953-74)
32 (1975-78)
40 (1979)
48 (1980-82)
52 (1983)
53 (1984)
64 (1985-2000)
65 (2001-2010)
68 (2011-present)

 

[KansasSooner]

I'm more for cutting it back to 32.

 

[jonvi]

The tournament wouldn't officially start until we're down to 64. There could be 8 play-ins (16 teams). That'd be 2 games per region. The 8 winners would advance to the brackets as the 15 & 16 seeds and join the other 56. Having 68 is just dumb. In 1983-84 they had 4 play-in games...and they actually called them play-in games. None of this 1st round crap with 4 games. Since the inception of the tournament in 1939 they've expanded 10 times.

8 (1939-50)
16 (1951-52)
22-25 (1953-74)
32 (1975-78)
40 (1979)
48 (1980-82)
52 (1983)
53 (1984)
64 (1985-2000)
65 (2001-2010)
68 (2011-present)

Having 64 is too many.

 

[element1286]

64 was perfect, why do we need all these play in games again?

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

No. No! NO! @$^%#%it NO!

Quit asking!

 

[The Derski]

32 is too small. Right now it's perfect.

 

[Arizona_Sting]

Nah. 64 was perfect, not sure why they changed it.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

No no, no, no, no no, no, no no no, no, no


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8c6YDniMKY]THE HUMAN BEINZ- "NOBODY BUT ME" ( W/LYRICS) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[jonvi]

I can live with 64...but the truth is I really think a 32 team tournament offers better games beginning to end.

Watching a 1 beat up on the 64th team in the nation is not good ball. And they always give the one seeds the prime time slot.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoMgnJDXd3k]Hitler NEIN! - YouTube[/ame]

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxRX6LXDpWs]No No No Cat - YouTube[/ame]


What I'm trying to say is, I don't support tournament expansion.

 

[brandonk989]

64. Take it back to there and leave it there. If you feel like you got shafted on the bubble then play better so you're not on the bubble. The end.

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

64. Take it back to there and leave it there. If you feel like you got shafted on the bubble then play better so you're not on the bubble. The end.

So. Much. THIS!

 

[TrollyMcTroller]

Just to be clear on my thoughts regarding expansion...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eal4fep7pK4]Ultimate "NOOOOOOOOO" Compilation - YouTube[/ame]

 

[MI Nightmare]

I can live with 64...but the truth is I really think a 32 team tournament offers better games beginning to end.

Watching a 1 beat up on the 64th team in the nation is not good ball. And they always give the one seeds the prime time slot.

I wouldn't mind watching my team beat up on a vastly inferior opponent. But I can't say the same for watching other lopsided match-ups.

 

[mr.hockey4242]

I can live with 64...but the truth is I really think a 32 team tournament offers better games beginning to end.

Watching a 1 beat up on the 64th team in the nation is not good ball. And they always give the one seeds the prime time slot.

I like it at 64 because there are a lot of great 1st round games and upsets.

I agree though it's absolutely ridiculous when 1 seeds at prime time.

It was even worse before 4 networks started showing games. I'd be so pissed when my cbs region showed that stupid 1/16 match up over an instant classic.

 

[azchamps]

32 If you can't ( as a team) make it that far, your team doesn't deserve to be in the dance.

I guess we could give 341 trophies to every team that is D-1

 

[wiskyisgood12]

I'd be good with going back to 64. The sad thing is these conversations will always happen because the Tournament makes money, and anything to make even more money. But, bigger isn't always better.

 

[OregonDucks]

either reduce to 64 which was perfect. or just expand to like 165. Everyone gets a chance, everyone gets a medal. Everyone wins!! How dare we hurt anyones feelings.

 

[john01992]

I get both sides of the argument but I think what it comes down to......

all you have to do is look no further than the size of d1 vs the size of the tournament to understand the problem

1985: 282 d1 teams, 64 team tourny= 22% make it
2000: 318 d1 teams, 64 team tourny= 20% make it
2008: 328 d1 teams, 65 team tourny= 19% make it
2013: 347 d1 teams, 68 team tourny= 19% make it
2014: 361 d1 teams, 68 team tourny= 17% make it

the conclusion is simple: d1 is rapidly expanding and pretty soon that % is going to shrink to 12%-13% (the levels when the tourny was 22/32 teams). the % keeps shrinking and we are starting to see that trend accelerate.

72 teams would bring us back to 20% and doing that is not unreasonable at all. people want to do the 16 vs 1 seed comparison but that is not the problem at all. the problem is the bubble is getting stronger & stronger each year and the aac/big east split which added another automatic bid did not help. expanding the tourny has nothing to do with adding more & more 16 seeds but adding more 11, 12, & 13 seeds.

for 135 d1 teams football is their big moneymaker/brand promoter. for the other 226 teams basketball is their big moneymaker/brand promoter. with all the d4 talk going on I think the net result is that FBS will get the concessions they want for football in exchange for expanding the tourny to >22% and a more equal revenue distribution model in basketball.